Everything is made from something so God clearly made the world because he is God. And if you want to ask how was God created? Well I'm not going to lie. God is not a thing or person. God is God! He's always been here.

Ever since Sin came into the world, the earth is not perfect. The earth will never be perfect. God uses people like me to go on mission trips and give these kids food and water and love. I have honestly helped more people than you can imagine. I never said society is perfect. I said the universe is perfect. We can breathe, have water, food, shelter. ect.!

Funny how your god didn't need to wait for humans to get around to helping each other back in the NT and OT. Now your god has to wait for humans to do research to help each other medically, to give water and food to people without, etc.

If the universe was "perfect" you wouldnt' have to do anything, lbaker. Humans are part of the universe and your pathetic little attempts to revise what you said when you are shown to be utterly WRONG are just sad.

I would wish I could make people like you actually understand the ramifications of your ignorance and your hatred of science when it shows your religion to be just more myths. I would make you live like you seem to want to, without modern medicine, without computers, without indoor plumbing, etc. It is a shame that you benefit from something you attack in your ignorance.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I believe is fossils. I never said I didn't! I want to see fosslis of the apes or other creatures that have "Changed" into another creature. Can you tell me this too, why are there still monkeys around?

1. There are 'still' monkeys around because humans aren't the descendants of monkeys. Both species are the descendants of an earlier primate species which diverged into several different kinds of primates. And there's no rule saying that a mother species has to vanish for a daughter species to come into being.

2. The theory of evolution is about how species change because of environmental pressures. It isn't about the magic 'evolution' shown in Star Trek, where one species will transform into another species. You won't ever have monkeys or apes (or any other primates) magically being transformed into humans, you'll have small incremental stepwise changes where one group of primates starts diverging from another because of distance, geography, and environment. If they diverge far enough, they stop being able to produce viable offspring together, and thus become separate species even though they might not look much different from each other.

Evolution can not be proven. Where are the missing links, those being fossils showing any living creature transforming from one to the next. [and so on -- it's a familiar and easily learned religious rebuttal and consistent with applied Christian persuasion]

Actually, there are numerous links. But link's is a poor term and not used in scientific terminology as such a thing would be impossible, but I have used it here for your clarity. In science no links can exist as a single one could not be visually identifiable as necessary to convince the Christian church. Scientists can clearly comprehend evolution without the large and visually impossible 'missing links' as required by the church. Science works through a more involved process but one not easily followed without education. These things are always stifled by a demanding religious system as they could disrupt an extremely wealthy church and thousands of the upper clergy are certainly unwilling to give up their powerful and wealthy religious positions when they can still the obedient public tongues with the usual dogma.

The concept of genetic adaptation would have been considered an impossibility in the Bronze Age, hence such concepts do not appear in the bible even through remote connotation. As such, and considering the Christian training, which comes only from the Bible, the religious fanatics cannot consider it as possible. Thus your denial of evolution, which is based solely on religious training, is ill considered as useful in a scientific argument. As you are making a scientific argument based on Bronze Age beliefs unsupported except in the Bible, perhaps you might seek some of the material that has been written between the Bronze Age and the present and become better informed, so you might present a more interesting point. We have learned many things since the time of Jesus. Societies progress through education, but the Christian religion is doing all things possible to defend and retain it's very wealthy position based on ignorance and superstition. Sadly too as it prevents so many good people from furthering themselves. Please understand, as it is no denial of any God, that the church is based on income--loads of income--and so the leaders are quite unwilling to open any floodgates to discussions that may find realities somewhat different than the church currently allows.

Please, I mean nothing disrespectful. Regretfully, regardless of my efforts to remain civil, I may be wrongly taken. Please do your best to understand that I may take a position here you cannot easily follow. I have a Ph.D in science, and suspect you do not, but nothing at all disrespectful is intended of you or your religion. This may surprise you but I completely understand you and your need to stand on the church position. What you may fail to understand is that your religious stance may not have come of your own volition. Most are unwilling to recognize this, but the church has been coercing infants for thousands of years and they have excelled in this practice. I too was convinced of a God when i was young. I had been given Catholic religious training, probably much like you received as an infant. What is foisted on us in our formative years is very difficult to later overcome if it is incorrect. It's not something children should be ordered to do.

Perhaps additional comments are in order her to assist you in understanding what a 'link' is and is not, and why it is highly unlikely you--or anyone--will ever see one. In short, why a link cannot exist at all. Frankly, that ridiculous concept has been the bane of scientists for some time.

Please consider that different physical changes visually suggestive enough, yet minute enough to bring the distinct possibilities of evolution to the mind of Christians would be difficult for a number of reasons, and not primarily because Christians have suffered under restrictive church demands and frightening concepts that produce a mindset that cannot be easily altered--even with reality. They have suffered the coercive persuasion of a powerful and extremely practiced church. The results are as real as concrete and almost as tough to get through later. It's truly sad, but regardless, science cannot see 'missing links' either. No one can. They cannot exist. This is a simple concept, and one I will explain.

What would a missing link look like. Would it be just like a chimpanzee but with an appearance suggestive of a human? How could you get something close enough to each yet distinctly recognizable as both to the Christians and scientists equally? Or, would a current day chimp see a 'missing link' as any different from it's own? Would you be able to visually notice the changes that make a link a viable concept? Perhaps if a primate were to show up that looked like a chimp but had the hip structure and the toes of a ground dweller? That would certainly do it, right? Yet that is a supposition, not necessarily a fact. Genetic changes that create the adaptive differences can be difficult to spot, happening minutely over millions of years, or they may happen almost spontaneously in a few thousand. Although we may have some wishful thinking that hopes for something that is instantly identifiable as parts of two distinctly different species. genetics runs under it's own and very different rules.

Anyone could deny a hypothetical human toed chimp as a 'link' because on visual clues, it's still calling for a highly biased and opinionated determination, not something based on fact. In short it's sadly a reasonable impossibility. Links are based on things far more difficult to see. Genetics write the rulebook here. Chromosomes and other microscopic elements that are responsible for changes in life's adaptive distributions over the years are the visible clues to evolution, not some visually identifiable 'link' capable of proving things, especially where people unwilling to consider anything beyond the demands and the learned statements of their extremely restrictive, fear based religions are concerned.

May I offer a suggestion? Please consider National Geographic. The March 2011 issue http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/table-of-contents contains some revealing looks into the domestication of foxes and the genetic adaptations that made it possible. That article displays visible evolution fairly well by pointing out the results of genetic adaptation in tail and ear appearance. Some foxes actually developed additional tail vertebrae from the genetic changes that followed domestication. Just as God doesn't heal amputees, do you find a God responsible for the development of additional verebra?

Additionally, if you will look into the July 2010 issue http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/table-of-contents, an article called "The evolutionary road" is insightful. It traces the human evolution from Ardipithecus ramidus (or Ardi). There are some drawings you might useful for understanding evolution beyond the typical church demands of ignorance based on fear.

Thank you,

Dr. J.M. Cook

If you would be so kind as to write me (I have made my email address available) I will provide something I have done to assist Christians who wish to better understand the concept of evolution. It is designed especially for Christians, and makes no attempt to deny the church, any Gods, or the carpenter, Jesus.

Howdy Cojon, I see you've found a brick wall to bang your head against. Welcome to the forum and what a great first post.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Ok you are right that chocolate chips were made by accident. I said that accidents don't make anything perfect. You can't compare this universe to chocolate chips. And how were those chocolate chips made? From nothing? No, they were made from chocolate. What was chocolate made from? Was it made from nothing? No! Everything is made from something so God clearly made the world because he is God. And if you want to ask how was God created? Well I'm not going to lie. God is not a thing or person. God is God! He's always been here.

You're not leaving this bubble any time soon are ya ?

Logged

rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Thank you, and I agree, it will. I hope few considered what I said as an argument against structured religion or a display of animosity toward the religious. I sincerely do attempt to take as objective and rational view as possible. I'm afraid however it can be taken as negatively intentioned by some, but it is not. It is most regretful that so many religious people are unaware that their absolutism on this subject is only insecure denial supported by justification and rationalism.

While they claim to have solid faith through the wonders of God, my research shows the religious to be long suffering people, insecure, and completely in denial of self evident realities that surround them. Of course they deny this, often becoming angered that someone would say such a thing. I really do understand and I cannot find argument against what they feel. I presume were I in their place I too would feel much the same. We hurt when others attempt to destroy what we have come to accept as a wonderful and necessary piece of our lives. People don't care to lose. I am certain many atheists feel similarly about some things. I surely do. So I like to be understanding and kind to people surrounding religious issues, but it is difficult to provide a heart filled with sympathy and be objectively scientific as well. I do make an attempt however.

Scientifically speaking, we will know a truly secure religious person when they can discuss both sides equally without emotion avoiding any mention of the Bible that could be a misinterpretation or is likely to be illogical as much of that old book truly is. Unfortunately, that as a basis for discussion removes most of the dogma they commonly use to stand on. To be honest, I wish some atheists would not so bitterly argue religion and more attempt to be actual atheists instead of the 'religious atheists' some appear as. I'm certain we all realize atheism is best defined as not following any religion, though not all practice it so calmly, with some preferring to shout their beliefs to the world in an angry and demanding voice. That makes me think of a truly factual line about catching more flies with honey . . .

I feel sympathy for the religious. They don't realize that they are suffering under a misconception that is tied directly to the well polished practice of coercive persuasion the Christian church has been improving for the last 2000 years. Of course peers and a fear based society are additionally involved in continuing this fear while other fears are built as well. It truly is unfortunate to have been so indoctrinated with fear that one cannot recognize religion for what it is; nothing more than a Bronze Age myth, unsupported in any reality. I do feel sad that they were so horribly frightened during their formative years that they cannot now utilize any objective, rational, or logical thinking without having to feel the tug of that unnecessarily introduced and exceptionally powerful fear.

I suspect that someday, such atrocities by parents will be viewed on an equal level with lengthy and severe beatings. Actually, what many people have endured is far worse as the marks of it will remain to hold some from feeling free their entire life. I consider that a cruelty beyond all others. We have outlawed such things when done by people not associated with a church, so why do we allow it by people who claim a right by way of religious beliefs? it's absolutely ridicules how the convoluted manner of American justice works. Frankly, I keep waiting for the crucifix to be recognized as a religious necessity and next to find the church allowed to use it as a the torture device it truly is. I wonder how they would justify torturing atheists?

That thought always takes me to Scientology. How could one low grade, failing science fiction writer put in writing that the best way to make money was to come up with a religion, and then have people allow it to be pulled off? The whole concept reeks of using the weakness of some along with knowledge that you can fool many fairly easily because they so want a place to belong.

That deceptive writer used people with his absolutely impossible claim of knowing the first name of someone who flew here billions of years ago in space ships looking like B-29's to drop some remnant of their civilization into volcanoes off Hawaii then blow them up with atomic bombs, thus infecting every person in the world for the rest of time. Then, some billions of years later, claim the remnants of those people as being responsible for all our inabilities and insecurities. How could anyone buy into that that who was not severely in need of sympathy and help? It is so obvious that would be a case of a person with a desire to take advantage of people damaged by childhood horrors , yet America allows it.

So, you will find me quite supportive of those who are so deeply involved through their infantile lessons that the induced fears are still so difficult as adults they establish a continuing need for religion. They spend their entire lives supplicating to a myth, unable to be objective or rational even when this is so incredibly easy to realize.

Fortunately for all mankind (women too! All of us!) religion is on the way out. The current figures display an undeniable return of people to an objective and logical life. We certainly need it.

Perhaps I will someday take the time to write about what psychologists know about religion and those who feel the faith so strongly that all the worlds arguments cannot convince them of reality. Some of you might be interested in understanding exactly what is so attractive in religion that people will deny all reality to continue it, all the time secretly knowing it as a myth but continuing as a outspoken supporter regardless. Do you know what it is that holds people for so long? Most people are also not aware of the large part geography has in continuing the extremely damaging myth of religions. More than you might expect. Most people do not consider some of the really salient points, and they are very interesting.

Pardon me if I have anything not clear this morning. I had not intended to write anything because i have been tired, but could not resist. That creates errors. Dr. Cook

Because my writing supported atheism my college received a number of embarrassing letters and claimed to have lost some crucial financial supporters as well. They asked that I not reveling the name of the college in my writing and I agreed. While I am no longer religious, I am not about to damage a college that treated me with exceptional tolerance and trust while providing an MBA and Ph.D. Perhaps this will help you understand. I graduated from a small religious college in the early seventies.

I began writing, was hired by a publisher and soon became a columnist with a small but worldwide audience. I dropped the writing when I received threats and visits from armed fanatics. This forced an identity and address change. My Ph.D is in behavioral psychology. I worked as a business and marketing advisory, but stopped over 30 years ago, opening a number of businesses myself. I am in my 70's and disabled now.

I hope you will receive this as politely as I intend it and understand why I choose to continue protecting my religious college.

Because my writing supported atheism my college received a number of embarrassing letters and claimed to have lost some crucial financial supporters as well. They asked that I not reveling the name of the college in my writing and I agreed. While I am no longer religious, I am not about to damage a college that treated me with exceptional tolerance and trust while providing an MBA and Ph.D. Perhaps this will help you understand. I graduated from a small religious college in the early seventies.

Oh, I understand completely. Doctoral dissertations from accredited institutions are never kept secret. In fact, far from it, they are widely published for review and criticism -- that is, in fact, a major element of the process for granting a Ph.D. It sounds to me like you're trying to claim credentials that you don't actually have.

Just as an offhand guess, by the way... you wouldn't happen to live in Venezuela, would you? I ask merely for information. *cough*

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Scientifically speaking, we will know a truly secure religious person when they can discuss both sides equally without emotion avoiding any mention of the Bible that could be a misinterpretation or is likely to be illogical as much of that old book truly is. Unfortunately, that as a basis for discussion removes most of the dogma they commonly use to stand on. To be honest, I wish some atheists would not so bitterly argue religion and more attempt to be actual atheists instead of the 'religious atheists' some appear as. I'm certain we all realize atheism is best defined as not following any religion, though not all practice it so calmly, with some preferring to shout their beliefs to the world in an angry and demanding voice. That makes me think of a truly factual line about catching more flies with honey . . .

If I am wrong, I too apologize ahead of time. However, we have already been tricked, so we have to be on our guard. Cojon is Spanish for testicle. Why would a doctor in his 70s that claims to live in the Bible Belt in his profile name himself that?

Just as an offhand guess, by the way... you wouldn't happen to live in Venezuela, would you? I ask merely for information. *cough*

That isn't funny even if you meant it as a joke.

I didn't mean it as a joke, and I wasn't trying to be funny. I was actually asking, because I'm pretty confident that I'm right. If I'm wrong, though, I'll gladly and graciously admit it.

I think you're absolutely right pianodwarf. Yesterday I was talking to albeto that I didn't think this fellow was who he was representing himself as. First, I know of no PhD's who would say they have a PhD in science, ever. Having given his "real" name, he especially wouldn't be so obtuse. There is a Dr. J.M. Cook who is an evolutionary biologist, but he is in the UK, not the "bible belt" as this person claims. Also, doctoral dissertation titles and abstracts are available through Proquest, and a search of the last name Cook revealed 38 dissertations in psychology from 1969-1981 (he claimed the 1970's) - one had the first initial J., but no J.M. The J.A. Cook was University of Tennessee, hardly a small christian college, and the topic was not behavioral psych. Anyway, not sure there is a way to link to proquest outside of a library server - otherwise I would put the link here - but anyone with library access to such things can do such searches.

In any case, a couple of other things were odd. 1) His discussion about missing links made little sense. 2) "my research shows the religious to be long suffering people, insecure, and completely in denial of self evident realities that surround them" -- ummm - ooo-k3) "To be honest, I wish some atheists would not so bitterly argue religion and more attempt to be actual atheists instead of the 'religious atheists' some appear as. I'm certain we all realize atheism is best defined as not following any religion, though not all practice it so calmly, with some preferring to shout their beliefs to the world in an angry and demanding voice." -- there's the "religious atheists" thing, and discussing atheism as a positive belief system4) bringing up scientology? really? 5) since when does a person's affiliation with a university have to remain private? This is a very convenient way to avoid anyone looking for his credentials, which I am quite sure are nonexistent. If he earned a PhD, he's say where it was from. Protecting the college is nonsense.6) where was his research published? I'm sure he could provide a citation.

Anyway, I'd be perfectly happy to be wrong, but with the information so far on the table, I agree with pianodwarf.

while it's often good to be concerned with sockpuppets, etc, IMO it seems a little misplaced here. Not all atheists are as out or are as confrontational as many of us, like oh me, for instance.

Quote

"To be honest, I wish some atheists would not so bitterly argue religion and more attempt to be actual atheists instead of the 'religious atheists' some appear as. I'm certain we all realize atheism is best defined as not following any religion, though not all practice it so calmly, with some preferring to shout their beliefs to the world in an angry and demanding voice."

And many accomodationists say things very similar to this. Again, not all atheists agree on how to do things. And no, I don't like conflating religion and atheism, and here, "religious" should have been replaced with "passionate".

I find no problem with this "my research shows the religious to be long suffering people, insecure, and completely in denial of self evident realities that surround them". It's certainly well supported in just where we see theism still very much in power. the poor, the disadvantaged, who need to have something to look forward to. We can see that psychologists often do think about religion and research, like here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psychology/a-behavioral-psychologist-s-view-of-religion-t428.html

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I agree. You are correct. That is a far better term and i wish i had considered it. Unfortunately I write quickly and post. I have been dinged before, for the very same thing. One would think I could learn to write posts in MS word, wait a day, review, correct and polish. But posts are little more than a quick thought. I apologize. You are correct.

While you do not seem one, I will approach the dissenters here, once, then it is time to drop the subject. I received my Ph.D after some work that dug deeply into the church. They not only disliked what I found, it threatened them. In all honesty, I was extremely fortunate to have received the degree I earned, and it was only due to efforts of my college and the protection they provided. I will not reveal my college!

By they way, not all dissertations make it to publication, and that is no criterion for awarding a doctorate. Accredited colleges have extreme latitude in requirements each requires for any degree.

I am from California, my family came from the south, and I am a direct descendant of The Swamp Fox. There is something else for you find difficulty with, however, do realize that it displays more about you than you may be aware of. Go ahead, if you go to far, needlessly impune too much, and others will see you differently than you may hope.

I hope i courteously mistyped something with my very large fingers so you may again insult without first considering.

While you do not seem one, I will approach the dissenters here, once, then it is time to drop the subject. I received my Ph.D after some work that dug deeply into the church. They not only disliked what I found, it threatened them. In all honesty, I was extremely fortunate to have received the degree I earned, and it was only due to efforts of my college and the protection they provided. I will not reveal my college!

By they way, not all dissertations make it to publication, and that is no criterion for awarding a doctorate. Accredited colleges have extreme latitude in requirements each requires for any degree.

I am from California, my family came from the south, and I am a direct descendant of The Swamp Fox. There is something else for you find difficulty with, however, do realize that it displays more about you than you may be aware of. Go ahead, if you go to far, needlessly impune too much, and others will see you differently than you may hope.

I hadn't caught the following (bolded below) the first time. This is rich. And it is very convenient for you to continue your ruse. So let me understand this. Your doctoral work at a small christian college 40 years ago was so controversial that they gave you a PhD, but you weren't allowed to use this PhD for anything, e.g., apply for jobs for which you were qualified, you weren't allowed to publish it, etc. But yet they gave you the doctoral degree (in "science" no less) anyway. Wasn't your advisor aware of your work? You DID manage to get a job writing as a columnist though, despite having to hide your credentials and your doctoral work. And THIS writing was so controversial that armed fanatics caused you had to CHANGE YOUR IDENTITY? I'm sorry, but that is just laughable. Since you changed your identity to Dr. Cook (which we now conveniently can't look anything up wrt to your dissertation (which would be findable, whether you think so or not) or your columns. How about this - since you already changed your identity due to the spanish inquisition, you might as well give us your former identity. In any case, everything you've written points to your being someone other than who you claim to be. If there are a people out there who want your former self (with a different name) dead, then you wouldn't be here giving such hints as to your real identity. Don't you think these armed gunmen monitor the atheist sites looking for you? I'd say you're probably in deep trouble, and probably better change that identity again.

I began writing, was hired by a publisher and soon became a columnist with a small but worldwide audience. I dropped the writing when I received threats and visits from armed fanatics. This forced an identity and address change. My Ph.D is in behavioral psychology. I worked as a business and marketing advisory, but stopped over 30 years ago, opening a number of businesses myself. I am in my 70's and disabled now.